Whether or not that fits with one's definition of necromancy is neither here nor there (though to say "there is no necromancy involved" is again an entirely personal view)

If you remember you said:

"but still I see no mention of actually raising and reanimating dead corpses.. I merely see possession of the living be they human or animal by a dead spirit..."

The barrow wights are clearly an example of this. They are corpses re-animated by evil spirits (on the impetus of the WK, probably).

You seem to be arguing against the proposition that Tolkien's meaning of the term "The Necromancer" must have included the idea of raising the dead because of the existance of the barrow wights. No such proposition has been suggested.

If anyone is "reanimating the dead" in this thread, it's a self-anointed Tolkien Purist putting words in the Professor's mouth from the grave.

This discussion is a classic example of using "It's not in the Spirit of Tolkien" as a club to hammer home a purely personal point of view. If fans don't end up liking Jackson's depiction of the undead in The Hobbit, they have every right to complain. But Tolkien, not Jackson, gave Sauron the name, "The Necromancer." So without ANY notes or letters from the Professor on the parameters of Sauron's necromancy, PJ and Company can't be criticized for deviating from the "Spirit of Tolkien."

Tolkien had so many undead walking around in middle earth didn't he? I clearly must have missed all his work on Zombie orcs and undead... But as long as PJ putting them in makes you happy that's all that matters I suppose

That is a type of Necromancy and zombiedom, though. I don't mean to challange
[In reply to]

Can't Post

your general notion, and I generally agree with you on many things, but a dead body/ a corpse that is re-animated by an evil spirit/unhoused demon, is still for all intents and purposes a zombie or otherwise undead/living dead creature. I think it is common enough in zombie and undead lore that the creature shuffling, or creeping about to drink the blood and devour the flesh of the living is NOT your dearly departed friend Eddie. As so many books, movies and stories would put it, "That isn't Eddie. Not anymore!" The Spirit moving the bones is the method of re-animation and the technical truth of the undead creature, but on the surface it is still, for all intents and purposes, an undead/living dead monster.

In Reply To

the Barrow wights were not, nor ever were, raised from the dead, they are long dead evil spirits or demons that inhabit the dead (and sometimes living) but there is no necromancy involved.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

We have unsubstantial ghosts, living beings that have faded, and possibly evils spirits using corpses as puppets.

We don't see the D&D idea of flesh-robots: animated corpses with no mind or spirit at all. Nor do we see a specific spirit of a dead being reanimating it's own corpse, as appears to be the case with Azog. A Far Dragon is the best kind...

Yet, for all intents and purposes, I think that most people would still consider
[In reply to]

Can't Post

a dead body re-animated by an evil spirit to be, essentially, a zombie, unless the spirit started doing things well beyond normal zombie behaviour. . . then it might be deemed a lich, a ghoul, a vampire, a haint etc. etc., but, in any event, undead and or living dead still seems to apply well enough, though I am not particularly keen on the idea of an undead Azog running around.

In Reply To

We have unsubstantial ghosts, living beings that have faded, and possibly evils spirits using corpses as puppets.

We don't see the D&D idea of flesh-robots: animated corpses with no mind or spirit at all. Nor do we see a specific spirit of a dead being reanimating it's own corpse, as appears to be the case with Azog.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but looking at the evidence we see that Tolkien never wrote about Sauron raising orcs from the dead. Why then should such an invention be made in a film, when the orcs clearly fill a very different purpose in Middle Earth than being a supernatural enemy? If the film makers wanted more supernatural, undead enemies, they can use creatures from Norse folk tales, which fit Tolkien's world better than typical zombies, like Barrow-wights.

The Barrow-wights are the only creatures described that really fit the bill of creatures similar to zombies. I don't agree that Nazgūl and Barrow-wights are the same either. The Nazgūl are men who end up being controlled by Sauron through their possession of The Nine rings, who live beyond their span because of their Rings, and who devote themselves to sorcery and black arts and gradually become more and more ensnared by Sauron's deceits and phantoms. When speaking about the Nazgūl, it's most helpful IMO to look at what Tolkien wrote about how a Ring of Power affects mortals ("The shadow of the past" and to look at what Aragorn and Gandalf says about their nature ("A knife in the dark", "Many meetings") and what is written about their origin in The Silmarillion. It's true that the Nazgūl don't live in the waking world like ordinary people do and are not alive in the ordinary sense, but they have never actually died and then been re-animated from the grave either.

But anyway all of this is very theoretical since we do not know anything about what will actually be in the film. I don't even know if there will be an undead Azog or Nazgūls rising from crypts or in what context we will see it, so I'll just treat these unconfirmed rumours for what they are for the present.

wish I could be correct 100% of the time like others around here even though it is OPINION plus I still have yet to find Zombies by today's standards, Although I can see where people can twist evil spirits possessing corpses into Zombies because that is what they want

I don't remember the names Azog or Bolg being mentioned in there..But I will admit its been a while....Even if they were mentioned in HoME as being supernatural, since it's not in the appendices of LOTR or the Hobbit story proper Jackson can't use any of the HoME material without risk of getting sued.

I'm referring to the possibility that some Orcs may have been supernatural in the sense that they were maiar, in response to the suggestion that orcs serve an entirely non-supernatural purpose in the stories.

You then said that you thought Tolkien would have mentioned this but now, presumably, realise that he did and embarked on another non-sequitur.

What have the names Azog, Bolg or the film rights got to do with the above?

where in the hobbit or the appendices did he mention them?
[In reply to]

Can't Post

I must be missing that in the material the Peter Jackson is allowed to use... HoME is off limits to be used for his films. We are discussing the films and the material they can use for said films here. In the material PJ is allowed to use I see no mention of Zombie Orcs/Goblins or supernatural orcs anywhere. Personaly I don't care what Peter Jackson wants to include, its about what he can include, the Tolkien estate can sue him for using material outside the Hobbit and LOTR. You really think he's gonna take that chance? I'll buy that theory of Zombie orcs or supernatural orcs if you can point it out in the text that Jackson is allowed to use, the Hobbit and LOTR. Just find me one sentence where it refers to Azog or Bolg as being anything other than ordinary run of the mill large powerful goblins/orcs. Heck just find me a sentence about Bolg being "the torturer of Dol Guldur". Otherwise I think the idea is bogus and nothing at all in the "spirit of Tolkien"

I can't quite believe that you cannot follow the thread of the argument.
[In reply to]

Can't Post

And therefore can only assume you are being obtuse, as the alternative would be unkind.

If you would like a separate discussion on whether Azog is a likely candidate for a Maia-Orc and how the films might allude to similar ideas without encountering rights issues, I would be happy to have it. You might perhaps find and read the relevant essays first and then we can discuss.

I want specifics in the text that Jackson is allowed to use. Thats all essays and information not included in those sources simply do not matter since Peter Jackson can not use them. This pertains to the films not what Tolkien wrote in his many other writings. Pertains to the films and what can be used in them. or are you missing the point?

No it is not pertaining to the films. If you go back and re-read you will see that.
[In reply to]

Can't Post

It is regarding the abstract purpose of Orcs in the stories.

However, when you have read the essays, I will be happy to discuss in the context of the films and to be specific, as I said, how Jackson might be able to allude to ideas which are in HOME without running into rights issues.

Unless we go and read then we are speaking from a position of ignorance.